Chemotherapy strategies in the treatment of small cell lung cancer

Popat, Sanjay; O’Brien, Mary

doi:10.1097/00001813-200504000-00002

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Increased DNA repair capacity would be anticipated as detrimental to cisplatin efficacy, while decreased DNA repair capacity would result in a more positive initial response to the therapy. Cisplatin is a front-line treatment for a variety of cancers, including testicular, lung and ovarian cancers, as well as tumors of the head and neck [75][76][77][78][79]. The importance of DNA repair capacity in influencing chemosensitivity has been born out in a subset of cancers and treatments.…”

Section: Ner and Response To Chemotherapeuticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eukaryotic nucleotide excision repair: from understanding mechanisms to influencing biology

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

npg Repair of bulky DNA adducts by the nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway is one of the more versatile DNA repair pathways for the removal of DNA lesions. There are two subsets of the NER pathway, global genomic-NER (GG-NER) and transcription-coupled NER (TC-NER), which differ only in the step involving recognition of the DNA lesion. Following recognition of the damage, the sub-pathways then converge for the incision/excision steps and subsequent gap filling and ligation steps. This review will focus on the GGR sub-pathway of NER, while the TCR sub-pathway will be covered in another article in this issue. The ability of the NER pathway to repair a wide array of adducts stems, in part, from the mechanisms involved in the initial recognition step of the damaged DNA and results in NER impacting an equally wide array of human physiological responses and events. In this review, the impact of NER on carcinogenesis, neurological function, sensitivity to environmental factors and sensitivity to cancer therapeutics will be discussed. The knowledge generated in our understanding of the NER pathway over the past 40 years has resulted from advances in the fields of animal model systems, mammalian genetics and in vitro biochemistry, as well as from reconstitution studies and structural analyses of the proteins and enzymes that participate in this pathway. Each of these avenues of research has contributed significantly to our understanding of how the NER pathway works and how alterations in NER activity, both positive and negative, influence human biology.

show abstract

Section: Ner and Response To Chemotherapeuticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eukaryotic nucleotide excision repair: from understanding mechanisms to influencing biology

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a small study, the ECb and EC combinations were compared, and the researchers reported the equivalence of the two treatments, although ECb was found to be less toxic 13. A number of studies with paclitaxel as monotherapy or as part of combination regimens have been evaluated with inconsistent results in first- and second-line treatment 14,15…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of second-line chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis

Zarogoulidis¹,

Boutsikou²,

Darwiche³

et al. 2013

OTT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo evaluate the benefit of second-line chemotherapy with platinum-based treatment in patients with recurrent small cell lung cancer (SCLC).Patients and methodsA total of 535 patients continued with follow-up or best supportive care if needed, and 229 patients who progressed after the completion of first-line chemotherapy were treated with second-line chemotherapy at the time of progression. In total, 103/229 patients received paclitaxel 190 mg/m2 and carboplatin 5.5 area under the curve while 126/229 patients received etoposide 200 mg/m2 and carboplatin 5.5 area under the curve every 28 days.ResultsPatients administered second-line chemotherapy lived significantly longer, with a median survival of 422 days compared to 228 days in patients with best supportive care alone (P<0.001). Patients who received paclitaxel as second-line chemotherapy lived for an average of 462 days (95% confidence interval: 409–514), versus 405 days in the etoposide group (95% confidence interval: 371–438), which was not statistically significant (P=0.086). The overall response rate was 8% for the paclitaxel group and 6% for the etoposide group. Patients with progression of the disease in more than 3 months had significantly better survival compared with those that progressed in less than 3 months (P<0.001).ConclusionContinuation with carboplatin/paclitaxel or carboplatin/etoposide as second-line chemotherapy has no significant survival impact, and it did not improve response rates.

show abstract

“…Treatments in the past including oral etoposide, standard-and high-dose regimens have been extensively reviewed by the authors in an earlier publication (Popat and O'Brien, 2005). Combination therapy with EP is considered the standard first-line regimen (Sundstrom et al, 2002), but a randomised Phase III trial failed to prove a definitive survival benefit for EP compared with the cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and vincristine regimen (CAV) (Roth et al, 1992).…”

Section: Treatment Of Edmentioning

confidence: 99%